Is psychiatry a hard or soft science?

go to bed mom. i'll be waiting for you ;)

File: images.jpg (8KB, 275x183px) Image search: [Google] [Yandex] [Bing]

8KB, 275x183px

>>7653460

u pice of dirt

It's not a science.
Nothing is verifiable. It's all "oh man, this weird shit happened to five people in Canada."

Sociology is vaguely statistics, kinda. So that could be closer to a soft science.

>>7653449
>psychiatry
the editor of DSM-IV and the recently departed head of NIMH had bad things to say about DSM-5:
lack of validity, pathologizing normal behavior, etc

>>7653449
Soft
You could google this

>>7653449
freudian method of psychoanalysis had matured with the help of thousands of therapists who wrote books on the subject, gradually changing the discipline in the process
although the dominant conception of the human brain nowadays is of cognitive fashion, freuds method shouldve been forgotten if it hadnt been valid. there was even a cultural uprising against psychiatry in the '60s, which further elaborates on the fact that it mustve been doing something good to survive for so long

Are you guys really equivocating psychiatry and psychoanalysis?

Because if they've suddenly stopped empirically testing psychoactive drugs then we's fucked

A true scientist will inquire "How would one determine the hardness of science?"

It's an art, like economics, or alchemy

>>7654585
>normal behavior
Normal for who?
I would argue that drinking alcohol (or smoking) are widespread culturally accepted stockholm syndrome-esque activities.

> taking in a toxin
> is uncomfortable at first
> modulates brain activity

people often can't see and/or accept their own cultural bias

p.s I'm a white brit

>>7655925
>it exists so it's doing good
kek

>>7653449
trick question, it's not science

False dichotomy. Psychiatry is a cult. A for-profit, state-sanctioned, control-oriented cult.

>>7653449
Psychoanalysis is a pseudo-science. Freud and his close offshoots have been debunked.